As you may recall, I've been reading through some old speeches, interviews, and books by Martin Luther King, Jr. You may also know that he was opposed to the Vietnam War. The other day, I had time to just pick up a speech he gave outlining his opposition to that war.
I haven't finished it, so I'm not commenting on that directly.
What I'm more curious about is where you stand on war. This has at least two significant dimensions.
1) How would you, personally, feel about going to war?
2) How do you, as an American, feel about the country going to war?
And if you support war, how do you jive it with the Sermon on the Mount - specifically, "do not resist an evil person," "whoever strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other, also," "whoever takes your cloak, give him your tunic also," etc?
This is not meant rhetorically - I'd really love to hear some opinions. So please, tell me what yout think.
12 comments:
I have gone back and forth on the idea of war. On the pro side, I would argue that God created nations and has enabled the leadership therein. Some countries, like the U.S., have deemed it necessary to fight for the cause of democracy. To this end, I support war. I find it appalling what some countries do to their people. A good example of this would be Darfur or Rwanda where I feel a war would institute peace within the country (I know it's quite contrary to each other).
On the other hand, I've always felt uneasy about using death and killings as a means to an end. And many wars the U.S. have fought in have been controversial to the point of the war.
In the end, this world is driven by the angel of darkness and wars aimed at curbing violence and evil may in fact be necessary.
I'm a strong believer in the "just war" tradition. The big distinction between just war and the sermon on the mount is that in just war you're defending the lives of others, whereas in the ethics of the sermon on the mount, you're submitting yourself to an evil person.
Regarding the current US war, I am highly unconvinced that it is a just war.
However, I am adamantly opposed to any true form of pacifism because that position offers no way to oppose Nazi Germany, genocide in Darfur, or even a child molester. To give most pacifists credit, they aren't really pacifists; rather, they simply take issue with the specific unjust wars that are carried out by certain nations.
Just to make sure I was clear, let me give an example. A police officer in his role as a police officer is not allowed to let an innocent person suffer at the hands of a criminal; however, that same police officer, under the Sermon, should turn his own cheek if he were struck in the face over a personal matter.
I'm still interested in other opinions. Please, feel free to add your thoughts, anyone!
Kenny: I'm interested to know the circumstances under which you would consider a war Just. I'm not taking the pacifist view here - I'm just trying to flesh out the range you view as acceptable.
Rob: Where do we draw the line in the wars we fight, or the democracies we support? Is it enough that we think a country should be a democracy, so we invade systematically all countries which aren't, to establish the rules we think are best?
Violence may sometimes be necessary. But I suspect that it's necessary much less often than we typically believe. That's why MLK and Ghandi's nonviolent revolutions so impress me, because armed revolt is typically the answer to the problems they faced.
When reading this I get confused with the new and old testament. I believe Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the law but to complete it.
In the old testament there are plenty of wars that are won because of the Hand of God.
In the book of Esther (Chapters 6-9) alone more then 75,000 men were killed just because they hated the Jews. Granted there was a decree out saying that they could kill the jews, but God used Esther to change the tables and allowed the Jews to kill anyone who was against them. Totalling over 75,000 men. They were even given permission to kill women and children and take their plunder, but they chose not to do the latter. So how does this compare with turn the other cheek? They could have just asked for a decree to be put out saying they were not to harm any Jew. But they went the extreme.
So if Christ didn't come to abollish the law, then how does the sermon on the mound mesh with the old testament?
Dave, this is definately an example of a nonpeaceful sollution that was orchastrated by the hand of God. We do say the Bible is the word of God, God breathed. Actually the Bible says that , not us.
And where does the verse share one anothers burdens come into play. We should be at war and stepping in to Darfur, just as we should have with Rwanda. We should have bared their burden.
Isn't it in an extreme way the same thing as saying, I'll pray for you because you are hungry and homeless, but I will not give you food or shelter? We are to give to the needs, not just use our words. God has equiped us to act.
As far as todays war, I don't get it, I was all in for going after the people that hit the towers, but it has takens some drastic changes while the people that we should be after fall to the wayside.
I used to always say I would break my husband or sons legs as often as needed to keep them from going off to fight in a war, but that is fear talking, and a motherly instinct to protect by any means possible. broken legs heal. But in reality, I would have to do what all the other mothers and wives and even husbands now have had to do. And that is to pray and support any way I could.
Finally, talk to the people who go over seas. They are in full support of what they are doing over there. One soldier said, " 95 % of the people in that country want the Americans there. They want change. Once we defeat the other 5% we can return home."
I also had a friend over there that had a tough time returning home before the job was finished. He had made several friends over there with the locals and wanted them to live in peace instead of fear. He said the same thing, "most of them want us there and are thankful to have us there."
Those are the people we should be listening to. Hasn't it been said the media is only going for the story? The facts that create drama, and ratings?
Anyways, I think I am rambling now. Those are my thoughts.
smalls
Smalls-
I'm going to try to answer your question as Dr. King would have, because I'm trying to hold myself out of the discussion. But I'm not going to do nearly as persuasive a job, so bear with me. But on a personal note, I tremble at any justification that boils down to the pursuit of American interests, or defeat of those who don't want America there. The moment we are fighting, not to establish justice but only to further our own ends, that is the moment I am unabashedly and unreservedly opposed to the war, period. And when I hear the justifications spoken (we have to fight them there so we do not have to fight them here - so let's blow up the homes of third parties to keep our own homes safe?) they remind me much more of selfish motives, not righteous ones.
Objection #1: While we are called to "bear one another's burdens, and so fufill the law of Christ," Christ also called on us to love our enemies, as well as one another. Through violence, we can murder a murderer, but we can not murder anger. We can murder a liar, but we cannot bring about truth. Darkness cannot overcome darkness - only light can do that.
Objection #2: We are called to act, but we must do so in a way that brings about justice for all men, including our enemies. When a country goes to war, it does all manner of evil with victory, not justice, as the justification. But we must act, because we must love those who are suffering. But this love is not a passive, weak, words-only love. It is one that will see us stand alongside them, and suffer alongside them, and by God's grace the harms that we suffer will awaken the conscience of the oppressor, and of the world to bring about change without violence.
Objection #3: In political rhetoric, defeat is never an option. Even in the troops minds, defeat is not an option - it would be to lose some of the pride that drives those men. But in the Old Testament, defeat was often an option for God's people. To suffer defeat because victory would take you further from God is a good thing. Victory for victory's sake is a matter of pride.
My best guess on recconciling the OT and NT woul dbe along these lines, though I haven't fleshed it out. In the NT, we have God himself in the flesh speaking. We have the Son of God, who explains the unseen Father. So if I have to choose between the warlike actions of the NT, or the peaceful nonresistance of the NT, I would err with peaceful nonresistance. God may choose shocking means, as hell so clearly demonstrates. But unless God commanded us to go to war today, I think that principles dictated by Jesus have a higher call on us than principles deciphered from commands given to a specific people in specific situations.
I think the generally accepted view of when a war is just is pretty well outlined in the wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war
Just from my own head, I would use particularly focus on war being acceptable when it is for the purpose of protecting innocent people from evil doers. Also, I like the criteria of "last resort," which means that war is only used after all other options are exhausted.
At what point would you consider pursuing diplomacy exhausted? If a leader proves completely intractable? If some minimum standard of progress is not being met? If the administration determines it is exhausted?
Because as the article notes, both sides of the War/No-War argument leading up to the Iraq War made Just War arguments. According to the Bush administration, diplomacy with Hussein had been exhausted. According to his critics, it had not.
In practical terms, I think that "the time for action" often comes before every last shred of hope is gone from diplomatic or economic pressure - such as with Milosovek in Bosnia, or with Hitler in Europe. Hence, I think "Last Resort" is a lot fuzzier in practice than it sounds... and it makes a convinient point to attack if the war becomes unpopular.
"But unless God commanded us to go to war today,"
But isn't God the one who appoints our leaders?
I agree the criteria are probably extremely difficult to apply in real life. But they still strike me as the right criteria.
"I devoted myself to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven. What a heavy burden God has laid on men!" (Ecc. 1:13)
Good point Dave. I never thought about appointing leaders in other countries. I wonder why I kept it soley with America?
So how do we know if God is telling us to go to war? How do we know when it is acceptable? Is it like Kenny says, a "Just War?"
Did you comment on the war in Esther? We've always been taught to take the whole Bible into consideration. The Old and the New. But many times I feel that in debating things like the war, we seem to only quote the New Testament. Reading your blogs are so heavy for me. It is hard for me to wrap my mind around much of what you say. Your intelligence astounds me at times. I try not to let it intimidate me, but sometimes I just can't help it. Either way it is really interesting to check out your blogs regularly. They push me to really think.
"...and they did what they pleased to those who hated them." Esther 9:5
When I read the Old Testament, I tend to read it like a history book. At least, I do with the parts that are primarily narrative. There's a very real risk of reading our own preferences onto narrative, and drawing moral lessons from it is something that should be done with care.
The above statement describes what happened, but not whether that action was good, evil, both, or neither. It certainly seems in direct opposition to things Jesus taught ("You have heard that it was said 'You will love your friend and hate your enemy. But I say to you, love your enemy, do good to those who persecute you...").
In the presence of a seeming conflict, I find taking someone at their word to be a more reliable way of finding meaning than trying to decipher it from other sources.
But I admit, "Love your enemy, do good to those who hate you" sounds awfully at odds with "kill those you find in the land, down to the women and children, every last one."
That remains, for me, a toughie.
Post a Comment